Washington, D.C. – Today, Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) wrote to President Trump about his differing approach to combating climate change as a businessman compared to his positions and actions as a politician.

“Taking measures to protect your own assets from climate change while simultaneously sabotaging our nation’s efforts to do the same is duplicitous and unacceptable,” Senator Cantwell writes. “Today I am asking Donald Trump, the President, to acknowledge what Donald Trump, the businessman–and 97% of the world’s scientists–already know: climate change is real and we must do something about it. If you do that, I am confident we can work together to protect the American people and economy from the fallout associated with climate change with the same zeal you’ve shown for protecting your golf courses.”

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), climate change has already resulted in rising sea levels and severe weather events that are occurring more frequently and with greater intensity. They advise that the U.S. needs a national strategy to fight climate change, maximize investments, achieve efficiencies, and better position the government for success. However, Trump’s funding priorities in the FY 2018 budget proposal and changes to federal programs and policies from executive actions will decrease the federal government’s ability to address climate risks and increase taxpayer fiscal exposure.

See the full GAO report comparing Trump’s America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again and the March 28, 2017 Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth with GAO’s Limiting The Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change RisksHERE.

“As thousands gather in Washington, D.C., this weekend to express the need to take decisive action to address climate change, I write out of profound concern regarding your recent Executive Orders and directives that recklessly propose to rescind and eliminate policies designed to address the long-term economic costs of carbon pollution,” Senator Cantwell continued.

“This appears to be a fact you have acknowledged, when it comes to protecting your own assets. According to reports, you applied to build a 200,000-ton rock wall to protect one of your golf courses in Europe from, as the application states, “an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming.”

As thousands gather in Washington, D.C., this weekend to express the need to take decisive action to address climate change, I write out of profound concern regarding your recent Executive Orders and directives that recklessly propose to rescind and eliminate policies designed to address the long-term economic costs of carbon pollution. You’ve recognized these costs when it comes to your own business interests; but these same impacts are threatening the American economy.

Data prepared by the Rhodium Group and the World Resources Institute suggest that the policies announced during your first 100 days in office will, by 2025, increase annual U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by 900 megatons – more than Germany’s total emissions. Your actions will raise annual global emissions by 2%, causing even greater damage.

I was deeply dismayed to learn earlier this spring that, when pressed about the economic impacts of sea level rise and extreme weather, senior White House officials responsible for briefing the contents of your March 28 Executive Order on climate change reflected ignorance of their associated costs.

I was also shocked to hear OMB Director Mulvaney tell a group of reporters that government programs designed to prevent and minimize the impact of climate change are “a waste of [taxpayer] money.”

According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s National Climate Assessment, ignoring the threat of climate change will cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. This is because of the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, which will grow more costly over time.

This appears to be a fact you have acknowledged, when it comes to protecting your own assets. According to reports, you applied to build a 200,000-ton rock wall to protect one of your golf courses in Europe from, as the application states, “an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming.”

Out of similar concerns, Senator Collins and I have asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate what it will cost the Federal government to respond to the damage caused by climate change. That analysis is due to be completed this summer, and I strongly suggest you pay attention to its conclusions. The attached analyses compiled by GAO paint a very stark picture.

For example, without mitigation, climate change is expected to cause $5 trillion in damage to coastal properties in the next 75 years. Coastal damage will be one of the largest drivers in federal climate change-related spending—totaling a projected $78 billion by late century just in coastal disaster relief. As you know well, Mar-a-Lago is located on a barrier island off the Florida coast. These are the kinds of locations particularly vulnerable to catastrophic weather events.

But in addition, flood insurance costs are expected to rise. And as the GAO has noted, “the federal government owns and manages facilities and land vulnerable to climate change–DOD alone estimates its property replacement value is close to $850 billion.” Moreover, it’s estimated policies that further delay needed reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will cost our economy $150 billion a year.

Mr. President, the economic impacts of rising sea level and extreme weather are precisely the kind of phenomena that require us to take collective action to address climate change. Taking measures to protect your own assets from climate change while simultaneously sabotaging our nation’s efforts to do the same is duplicitous and unacceptable.

Today I am asking Donald Trump, the President, to acknowledge what Donald Trump, the businessman–and 97% of the world’s scientists–already know: climate change is real and we must do something about it. If you do that, I am confident we can work together to protect the American people and economy from the fallout associated with climate change with the same zeal you’ve shown for protecting your golf courses.

*Editor’s Note* – The norm in Washington, as well as far too much of today’s society, is lying. What would prompt a politician (I’m sure he’s never lied before) to attempt to impeach someone for lying. When you stop and consider the bold lying that takes place everyday from the disgusting, corrupt politicians in Washington, NOBODY want’s to impeach anybody for such crimes as it might draw attention onto themselves revealing their own skeletons.

This is a good-ole-boys(girls) club. Don’t rock the boat. Unexplained things happen when you do.

A Republican lawmaker is moving to impeach the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, accusing her of committing perjury and making false statements in testimony to Congress – though the impeachment bid seems unlikely to succeed.

As nauseating as it is, another election season has begun. Must it always be a continuous bombardment of lying, cheating, thieving, disgusting politicians telling us stuff that just isn’t even real? I’m not sure which is more disgusting – the lying idiots who want to be king at your life’s expense or the idiots who believe the filth they are being told.

This morning, as the morning dose of necessary lies was being foisted onto the drunken viewer audience (drunken in their own lust for mind controlled, non thinking games played with words of untruth) I heard repeated several times, by different people about different people how some political hopeful needs to create him or herself somewhere along the fake continuum, the fake division of right and left, if they have any hope of being elected. And we, the listener, unquestioningly agree or don’t know the difference.

If a candidate were to ever speak Truth, he would be called a liar. When a candidate deliberately lies and the media says he must do that to get elected, he then is telling the truth? And we blindly follow it?

Had NBC Parent Company Comcast Not Fought a 2013 Shareholder Proposal Designed to Improve Accuracy of Statements Made by Company Employees Like Brian Williams, The Current Scandal May Have Been Avoided

Comcast Hired Outside Legal Counsel to Help it Fight Shareholder Proposal that Merely Asked Comcast to Review Its Accuracy Policies

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Ruled Shareholders May Not Ask Management of Public Companies to Make Certain Employees Are Making Accurate Public Statements

“It seems illogical for the federal government to prohibit shareholders of public companies from telling management it should tell the truth, but that’s the SEC’s policy. When bigshots at high-profile companies feel comfortable telling lies, you end up with scandals like this one with Brian Williams.”

Washington, DC – “NBC’s Brian Williams scandal may have been avoided had Comcast’s upper management not fought a 2013 shareholder proposal intended to help the Company identify accuracy problems and correct them before they became legal problems, and had the Securities and Exchange Commission not ruled that Company shareholders have no right to inquire about accuracy policies at publicly-held media companies,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research and the Comcast shareholder who submitted the proposal.

In 2012 Ridenour submitted a shareholder proposal for consideration at Comcast’s 2013 shareholder meeting that would have required Comcast’s management to review its standards for accuracy.

“Comcast took our proposal to the Securities and Exchange Commission and fought it tooth and nail,” said Ridenour, “but had it accepted the proposal and done the requested internal review of its accuracy standards and procedures, it might have prevented Brian Williams scandal it is involved in now that is going to be very, very costly to NBC, and thus to Comcast and its shareholders.”

“Comcast brought in the outside law firm of Davis, Polk and Wardwell to help it fight the proposal, said Ridenour, and eventually got the SEC to rule that our simple request that the Company review its policies to make certain its employees were making only accurate statements in public was inappropriate because it dealt with, in the SEC’s term, ‘legal compliance.'”

“Essentially,” said Ridenour, “not lying in public is ‘legal compliance,’ and the SEC does not want shareholders involved in legal compliance, so shareholders at publicly-held companies are not allowed to ask management to have policies in place to make certain their employees tell the truth.”

“It seems illogical for the federal government to prohibit shareholders of public companies from telling management it should tell the truth, but that’s the SEC’s policy,” said Ridenour. “When bigshots at high-profile companies feel comfortable telling lies, you end up with scandals like this one with Brian Williams.”

“Since Comcast’s management spent so much money to fight our proposal, they no doubt were happy when they beat us,” said Ridenour, “but I wonder if they are happy now. Had management reviewed its policies for making certain employees were not lying in public it might have realized it had big problems in the truthfulness area and taken actions that might have nipped the current Brian Williams scandal in the bud before it ever happened.”

Documents laying out our proposal, the Company’s opposition to it and our rebuttal, as well as the SEC’s final decision not to allow shareholders to request an accuracy review, can be found online on the SEC’s website here.

“I submitted my proposal after a Comcast employee, Rachel Maddow, falsely said on MSNBC on April 23, 2012 that my employer, the National Center for Public Policy Research, repeatedly ‘funnel[ed] cash and perks… to Members of Congress’ to influence legislation, which, if true, would have been a felony. Maddow also used the phrase ‘bribe[d] Members of Congress.’ At the 2012 shareholder meeting we asked Comcast CEO Brian Roberts for a correction and/or apology,” said Ridenour, ” thinking we’d easily get one, as even high school-level journalists know better than to accuse people falsely of felonies in news reports. Instead, to our surprise, we received a long letter filled with irrelevant insults from MSNBC President Phil Griffin and Maddow called us ‘cretins’ – among other things – in a broadcast.”

“It was then that we realized Comcast had a serious problem,” added Ridenour, “as very top management did not appear to care about accuracy – at all. That can lead to all kinds of problems for media companies. I admit I thought the problem would be expensive libel suits against Comcast from people who did not like, as we did not like, being falsely accused of felonies, rather than the company’s #1 public face being brought down in an unnecessary, foolish and – for Comcast – expensive scandal, but it hardly matters. All these problems are expensive, they all were unnecessary, and they all could have been prevented just by making even a minimal effort to be accurate.”

Neither Ridenour nor the National Center for Public Policy Research ultimately sued Comcast for its libel, citing the time and expense such a lawsuit would have required, but National Center personnel, including Amy Ridenour’s husband, National Center President David Ridenour, and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, have continued attending Comcast’s annual shareholder meetings and have continued to encourage management to impose accuracy standards internally, for the Company’s own sake.

Ridenour’s proposal for the 2013 shareholder meeting asked Comcast management to submit a report to shareholders that would:

1. Disclose the policies and procedures by which the Company minimizes the risk of libel, slander and defamation lawsuits and its policies regarding the training of Company employees regarding the importance of fact-checking written and spoken statements;

2. Disclose the Company’s policy for issuing corrective statements regarding statements by Company employees that carry a reasonable risk of being legally actionable;

3. Describe the means by which the Company objectively evaluates employee statements for accuracy and legal exposure.
“This Brian Williams scandal is a big, expensive headache for Comcast,” concluded Ridenour. “A culture encouraging and enforcing accuracy could have prevented this headache. We again urge Comcast management to impose policies internally to make accuracy a high priority in all statements, written and spoken, by Comcast employees. This will benefit Comcast greatly.”

Press releases from 2013 describing the proposal contemporaneously as well as the exchanges of the National Center’s David Ridenour and Justin Danhof with Comcast CEO Brian Roberts at the 2013 shareholder meeting are available here and here, and a Washington Free Beacon story by Andrew Evans about that meeting is available here. A Newsbusters story by Jack Coleman about the 2012 Comcast meeting in which the National Center first asked for a correction/apology is available here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

*Editor’s Note* – In 2013, when Congress removed the ban on government to lie to the American people, it is the following Executive Order considering fraudulent, non scientific, global warming, which epitomizes exactly why the president of the United States needs to lie to the people. The preamble to this Executive Order, along with Section 1, is 100% propaganda. The rest is fiction.

It’s all quite disgusting!

CLIMATE-RESILIENT INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to safeguard security and economic growth, protect the sustainability and long-term durability of U.S. development work in vulnerable countries, and promote sound decisionmaking and risk management, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change. Even with increased efforts to curb these emissions, we must prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The adverse impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, increases in temperatures, more frequent extreme precipitation and heat events, more severe droughts, and increased wildfire activity, along with other impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, such as ocean acidification, threaten to roll back decades of progress in reducing poverty and improving economic growth in vulnerable countries, compromise the effectiveness and resilience of U.S. development assistance, degrade security, and risk intranational and international conflict over resources.

Executive Order 13514 of October 5, 2009 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance), and Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change), established a strong foundation for coordinated and consistent action to incorporate climate-resilience considerations into policies and procedures throughout the Federal Government. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) with international development programs must now build upon the recent progress made pursuant to these orders by systematically factoring climate-resilience considerations into international development strategies, planning, programming, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities.

This order requires the integration of climate-resilience considerations into all United States international development work to the extent permitted by law. Dedicated U.S. climate-change adaptation funds are critical to managing the risks posed by climate-change impacts in vulnerable countries. Coping with the magnitude of the consequences of accelerating climate change also requires enhanced efforts across the Federal Government’s broader international development work. Consideration of current and future climate-change impacts will improve the resilience of the Federal Government’s broader international development programs, projects, investments, overseas facilities, and related funding decisions. The United States will also promote a similar approach among relevant multilateral entities in which it participates.

By taking these steps and more fully considering current and future climate-change impacts, the United States will foster better decision-making processes and risk-management approaches, ensure the effectiveness of U.S. investments, and assist other countries in integrating climate-resilience considerations into their own development planning and implementation. Collectively, these efforts will help to better optimize broader international development work and lead to enhanced global preparedness for and resilience to climate change.

The international climate-resilience actions required by this order complement efforts by the Federal Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at home and globally. The more greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, the less need there will be to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.

Sec. 2. Incorporating Climate Resilience into International Development. (a) Agencies with direct international development programs and investments shall:

(A) assessing and evaluating climate-related risks to and vulnerabilities in agency strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, overseas facilities, and related funding decisions, using best-available climate-change data, tools, and information, including those identified or developed pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of this order; and

(B) as appropriate, adjusting strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities, based on such assessments and evaluations;

(ii) collaborate with other agencies to share knowledge, data, tools, information, frameworks, and lessons learned in incorporating climate-resilience considerations into agency strategy, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities;

(iii) work with other countries, as appropriate, to identify climate risks and incorporate climate-resilience considerations into their international development assistance efforts;

(iv) when determining how to use resources, support efforts of vulnerable countries to integrate climate-resilience considerations into national, regional, and sectoral development planning and action; and

(v) monitor progress in integrating and promoting climate-resilient development considerations as required by this subsection.

(b) Agencies that participate in multilateral entities and other agencies with representation in multilateral development entities, including multilateral development banks and United Nations organizations, shall, as appropriate:

(i) work to encourage multilateral entities to:

(A) assess and evaluate climate-related risks to and vulnerabilities in their strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, using best-available climate-change data, tools, and information; and

(B) adjust their strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, as appropriate, based on such assessments and evaluations;

(iii) encourage multilateral entities to support efforts of vulnerable countries to integrate climate-resilience considerations into national, regional, and sectoral development planning and action; and

(iv) monitor the efforts of multilateral entities in integrating climate-resilient development considerations as encouraged by this order.

Sec. 3. Enhancing Data, Tools, and Information for Climate-Resilient International Development. Agencies with direct international development programs and investments and those that participate in multilateral entities shall work together with science and security agencies and entities, through the Working Group on Climate-Resilient International Development established in section 4 of this order, to identify and develop, as appropriate, data, decision-support tools, and information to allow the screening for and incorporation of considerations of climate-change risks and vulnerabilities, as appropriate, in strategies, plans, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities. In addition, such agencies shall coordinate efforts, including those undertaken pursuant to Executive Order 13653, to deliver information on climate-change impacts and make data, tools, and information available to decisionmakers in other countries, so as to build their capacity as information providers and users. United States participants in relevant multilateral entities shall share this information with the respective multilateral entity, as appropriate.

Sec. 4. Working Group on Climate-Resilient International Development. (a) Establishment. There is established a Working Group on Climate-Resilient International Development (Working Group) of the Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience (Council) established by Executive Order 13653.

The Secretary of the Treasury and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, or their designees, shall co-chair the Working Group. Agencies with direct international development programs and investments, agencies that participate in multilateral entities, and science and security agencies and entities shall designate a representative from their respective agencies or entities to participate in the Working Group. Representatives from other agencies or entities may participate in the Working Group as determined by the Co-Chairs.

(b) Mission and Function.

(i) The Working Group shall:

(A) develop, for agencies with direct international development programs and investments, guidelines for integrating considerations of climate-change risks and climate resilience into agency strategies, plans, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities;

(B) assess and identify, for agencies with direct international development programs and investments, existing climate-change data, tools, and information, as described in section 3 of this order, to help agencies assess climate risks and make decisions that incorporate climate-resilience considerations, such as through project screening. To the extent the Working Group identifies needs for new data, tools, and information, it shall work with relevant science and security agencies and entities to advance their development, as appropriate;

(C) identify approaches for adjusting strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities, to respond to the findings of climate-risk assessments;

(D) facilitate the exchange of knowledge, data, tools, information, frameworks, and lessons learned in assessing climate risks to and incorporating climate-resilience considerations into strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities, of agencies with direct international development programs and investments, including efforts referenced in section 3 of this order;

(E) work through existing channels to share best practices developed by the Working Group with other donor countries and multilateral entities to facilitate advancement of climate-resilient development policies;

(F) promote interagency collaboration, including through joint training; and

(G) develop, for agencies with direct international development programs and investments, methods for tracking and reporting on Federal Government progress in institutionalizing more climate-resilient development approaches, including performance metrics.

(ii) The Co-Chairs of the Council may designate additional Co-Chairs of the Working Group. The Co-Chairs of the Working Group may establish sub-working groups, as appropriate.

Sec. 5. Implementation and Reporting of Progress. (a) Implementation. To promote sustained focus on implementation, both at agency headquarters and in the field, the Working Group shall:

(i) establish a 2-year timeline, divided into 6-month intervals, to implement section 4(b)(i) of this order, setting forth specific goals to be accomplished and milestones to be achieved; and

(ii) analyze, at least annually, the Federal Government’s progress in implementing this order and provide recommendations for priority areas for further implementation to the Council, Office of Management and Budget, National Security Council, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other agencies, offices, and entities, as appropriate.

(b) Reporting.

(i) Agencies with direct international development programs and investments shall report on and track progress in achieving the requirements identified in section 2(a) of this order, including accomplished and planned milestones, through the Federal Agency Planning process set forth in section 5 of Executive Order 13653. Once the Working Group has developed metrics and methodologies as required by section 4(b)(i)(G) of this order, agency reporting shall include an estimation of the proportion of each agency’s direct international development programs and investments for which climate-risk assessments have been conducted, as well as an estimation of the proportion of the programs and investments for which climate risk was identified and acted upon.

(ii) Agencies that participate in multilateral entities shall report on the efforts of multilateral entities in integrating climate-resilient development considerations into their operations through the Federal Agency Planning process set forth in section 5 of Executive Order 13653. Where more than one agency is involved in the U.S. Government’s participation in a multilateral entity, the lead agency for such participation shall be responsible for reporting, in coordination with the other agencies involved.

Sec. 6. Climate-Change Mitigation. As agencies incorporate climate-resilience considerations into international development work, they shall continue seeking opportunities to help international partners promote sustainable low-emissions development. The Federal Government has greatly increased the number and variety of international development initiatives focused on climate-change mitigation, including programs to promote clean energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable land-use and forestry practices, as well as partnerships with more than two dozen countries to formulate and implement sustainable low-emissions development strategies. Within 1 year of the date of this order, and building on the full range of efforts the United States has undertaken to date, the National Security Council shall convene relevant agencies and entities to explore further mitigation opportunities in broader U.S. international development work and develop recommendations for further action.

Sec. 7. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) “Adaptation” has the meaning provided in section 8(b) of Executive Order 13653: adjustment in natural or human systems in anticipation of or response to a changing environment in a way that effectively uses beneficial opportunities or reduces negative effects;

(b) “Direct international development programs and investments” refers to:

(i) bilateral, regional, and multilateral international development programs and investments over which agencies have primary programmatic and financial management responsibilities; or

(ii) the extension of official financing by agencies bilaterally to private sector investors to support international development;

(d) “Resilience” has the meaning provided in section 8(c) of Executive Order 13653: the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions;

(e) “Agencies with direct international development programs and investments” means the Department of State, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, United States Agency for International Development, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, United States Trade and Development Agency, and other relevant agencies and entities, as determined by the Working Group Co-Chairs;

(f) “Science and security agencies and entities” means the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, United States Global Change Research Program, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and other relevant agencies and entities, as determined by the Working Group Co-Chairs; and

(g) “Agencies that participate in multilateral entities” means the Department of the Treasury, Department of State, and other relevant agencies and entities, as determined by the Working Group Co-Chairs.

Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law or Executive Order to an executive department, agency, or head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements and applicable U.S. law, and shall be subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

I seriously considered awarding Wayne Pacelle, the head of the biggest fraudulent and corrupt entity posing as an animal welfare institution, the Humane Society of the United States(HSUS), with the Tom Remington Horse Excrement Award. That would be giving him more recognition than he deserves and raising his moral standards up a bit.

True to HSUS’ deceitful ways, Pacelle attempts to discredit long-time outdoor writer Tom Hennessey for presenting facts about bears and bear hunting. Pacelle accuses Hennessey of twisting the facts and calls Hennessey’s opinion piece of work of slander against HSUS.

Pacelle then spends the remainder of his piece of propaganda lying like a well worn rug in the entrance way of a house of ill repute.

Pacelle and his fraudulent HSUS are the biggest liars in the world. Nothing they say is ever true. The only way they can function is to lie, cheat and steal because nobody in their right mind who knows the truth about HSUS would give them one thin dime.

Pacelle knows he is a fraud but he must pay his enormous salaries and so he walks the walk and lies the lies.

And yet, our media, our society, props this clown and his corrupt organization up by making them appear legitimate. HSUS is a political lobbying organization and yet our own corrupt government allows HSUS, a non profit, to lobby when rules forbid it. What does that tell us about both HSUS and the Federal Government. Because Washington is corrupt, HSUS is sheltered. Pacelle knows that and that is why he does and says what he does because he knows there are no repercussions, only more money to be made fraudulently.

So, for Pacelle to try to discredit Hennessey is about as dishonest as is the entire corrupt organization for which he is the front man.

Pacelle should return to Washington and continue hanging out with all his sleazy, slime-ball buddies roaming the halls of Congress and the White House.

John Kerry may be dumb like a fox or dumber than a bag of rocks, but for sure he’s a damned liar.

Like his boss, Barack “If you like it you can keep it” Obama, who has never told the truth about anything, John Kerry says “97%” of scientists say the sky is falling and we’ll all die if we don’t force more regulations on economically hurting people in order to put more money in his and the Ruling Establishment’s bank accounts, while preserving THEIR natural resources.

…supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen?

But the lying piece of shit goes on further to say:

We put millions of people to work…

Excuse me while I go grab one of those “millions” of jobs from one of those idiot’s fake companies tax payers gave billions of dollars to that went bankrupt. It would be vindictive to know this bastard and the one in the White House can’t sleep at night, but they are sleeping just fine because they have no morals or scruples.